Presented by:
Mark Hydeman
Steve Taylor
April 3, 2014
Logistics
Safety
Restrooms
Recycling
Cell phone etiquette
Lunch
Review forms
Webinar etiquette
PG&E Resources
Rebates
Tool Lending Library
Marlene Vogelsang (mxv6@pge.com)
2
Handouts
You can get a copy of the handouts
in PDF format as follows:
ASHRAE
Fellow
Exceptional Service Award
Standard 90.1 Energy Standard, two tours of duty, Vice-Chair
Technical Committee 1.5, Computer Applications, Past Chair
Technical Committee 9.9, Mission Critical Facilities
Technical Committee 9.10, Laboratory Systems
Electronic Communications Committee, Vice-Chair
SPC 205, Vice Chair
Research
Developed a simulation and assessment toolkit for data centers with LBNL
Principal Investigator for NBI PIER project on Large HVAC System design
Principal Investigator for ASHRAE RP 1455, Best of Class Control Sequences
Developer of the Universal Translator
Principal Investigator for the CoolTools Market Transformation Project
PMSC Lead for ASHRAE Research on Humidity Control for Data Centers and
Alternate Gas for Hood Testing (ASHRAE 110)
Other
Lead author of Title 24 HVAC compliance and acceptance requirements
Design and commissioning experience on dozens of chilled water plants
ASHRAE
Fellow
Standard 62 Indoor Air Quality, 8 years, chair
Standard 90.1 Energy Standard, Chair HVAC Subc., 14 years
Standard 55 Thermal Comfort
Guideline 16 Economizer Dampers, chair
Guideline 13 Specifying Direct Digital Control Systems, chair
TC 4.3 Ventilation, vice-chair
TC 1.4 Control Theory & Applications, chair
Author Fundamentals of Design and Control of Central Chilled Water Plants Course
Distinguished Lecturer
USGBC LEED
CSU
Agenda
Introduction
CHW Distribution Systems
Break
CHW Distribution System Balancing
CW Distribution Systems
Lunch
Selecting CHW Distribution Systems
Selecting CHW T
Selecting CW T
Selecting Chillers
Optimizing control sequences
Questions
Completion
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:45 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
1:30 PM
2:00 PM
2:30 PM
3:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
Articles (1 of 2)
Available at this URL:
http://www.taylor-engineering.com/publications/articles.shtml
Articles (2 of 2)
Available at this URL:
http://www.taylor-engineering.com/publications/articles.shtml
10
Hydronic design
Chiller selection
Cooling tower selection
Control optimizations
Commissioning
Retrofit
Replacement
chillers
Addition of VSDs
Control optimization
Commissioning
11
Cooling Towers
12
Pop Quiz 1
What happens to component
energy usage if we lower CWS
setpoint?
Chiller
Towers
Pumps
Pop Quiz 2
What happens to component
energy usage if we lower CW flow?
Chiller
Towers
Pumps
Pop Quiz 3
What happens to component
energy usage if we lower CW flow
AND the CWS setpoint?
Chiller
Towers
Pumps
16
17
No control valves
3-way control valves
Variable Flow
Primary-Only
Primary/Secondary
(/Tertiary)
Primary/Distributed
Secondary
Primary/Variable Speed
Coil Secondary
18
Constant Flow
Single Chiller, Single Coil, No Control Valve
SUPPLY WATER
TEMPERATURE
CHW
PUMP
CHILLER
SUPPLY AIR
TEMPERATURE
OPTIONAL
STORAGE
TANK
COIL
19
Constant Flow
Two Chillers, Single Coil, No Control Valve
SUPPLY WATER
TEMPERATURE
CHW
PUMP
CHILLER #2
CHILLER#1
VFD
SUPPLY AIR
TEMPERATURE
OPTIONAL
STORAGE
TANK
COIL
20
Constant Flow
3-Way Valves
3-Way Mixing
Valve
Bypass Balance
Valve
Item
Pressure at
constant flow
Flow at constant
Pressure (20)
Pipe/Valves
Coil and/or Bypass
Globe Control Valve
Total
GPM @ 20 P*
2
8
10
20
2
2
7.5
11.5
2
6
12
20
100
132
100
Constant Flow
Single Chiller, Multiple Coils
CHW
PUMP
CHILLER
3-WAY VALVES
COIL
22
CHW
PUMP
CHILLER
VFD
COIL
2-WAY VALVE
DP SENSOR
3-way
valves
sized for
minimum
chiller flow
3-WAY VALVE
23
Constant Flow
Multiple Parallel Chillers, Multiple Coils
SUPPLY WATER
TEMPERATURE
CHILLER
CH1
240 #1
gpm
CHW
PUMPS
How many
chillers do we
need to run?
CHILLER
CH2
240#2
gpm
COIL
Ballroom A
240 gpm
100% Loaded
Ballroom B
0 gpm
Unoccupied
24
Variable Flow
Vary Flow Through Coil Circuit
Two-way valves
Variable speed coil pump
Configurations
Primary-secondary
Primary-secondary variations
Primary-only
25
temperature
Variable flow causes low temperature trips,
locks out chiller, requires manual reset
(may even freeze)
Hence: Maintain constant flow through
chillers
26
Primary/Secondary
27
Primary/Secondary
100
gpm
ON
100
gpm
ON
100
gpm
0 gpm
OFF
ON
100
gpm
100
gpm
28
Variable Flow
Primary/Secondary, Multiple Chillers and Coils
CHILLER #1
PRIMARY
PUMPS
CHILLER #2
VFD
VFD
SECONDARY
PUMPS
COIL
2-WAY VALVE
DP SENSOR
29
Variable Flow
Primary/Secondary, Series Flow, Multiple Chillers
30
Variable Flow
Primary/Distributed Secondary
31
Variable Flow
Primary/Secondary/Tertiary
32
33
Variable Flow
Primary-only, Multiple Chillers
PRIMARY
PUMPS
CHILLER #1
VFD
CHILLER #2
VFD
FLOW
METER
BYPASS
COIL
2-WAY VALVE
DP SENSOR
34
Variable Flow
Primary, Bypass Valve
Location
Near chillers
Best for energy
Controls less expensive
Control more difficult to
tune fast response
Remote
Smaller pressure
fluctuations (easier to
control)
Keeps loop cold for fast
response
Less likely to unequally
load chillers
Sizing
Sizing critical when at
chillers/pumps
Different size if pump has
VFD or not
Flow measurement
Flow meter
Most accurate
Needed for Btu calc for
staging
DP across chiller
Less expensive
Accuracy reduced as tubes
foul
One required for each chiller
35
37
Two-positioning
Unstable control at low loads
Cost considerations
Reference
1.
Manual balance
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
540 gpm
400 VAV reheat coils
Constant speed pumps
Based on actual building in Oakland
Cooling system
1,200 gpm
20 Floor-by-floor AHUs
Variable speed pumps
41
Options 1, 4, 5, 6, & 7
Option 2
42
Option 8
43
Option 1: No Balancing
Advantages
No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted
without rebalance
Disadvantages
Imbalance during
transients or if
setpoints are
improper
Control valves near
pumps can be overpressurized,
reducing
controllability
44
Disadvantages
Added cost of calibrated
balancing valve
Higher balancing cost
Complete rebalance
may be required if coils
added/subtracted
Slightly higher pump
head due to balancing
valve
Coils may be starved if
variable speed drives
are used without DP
reset
Slightly higher pump
energy depending on
flow variations and
pump controls
45
PRESSURE PSIG
60
50
40
45 PSID
38 PSID
12 PSID
30
20
10
0
PUMP
CLOSE LOAD
REMOTE LOAD
VFD
Load
Load
100 GPM
5 PSID
100 GPM
5 PSID
DP
5 PSID
5 PSID
28 PSID, Cv=19
2 PSID
46
PRESSURE PSIG
60
50
40
19 PSID
12 PSID
12 PSID
30
20
10
0
PUMP
REMOTE LOAD
Load
Load
VFD
CLOSE LOAD
56 GPM
1.6 PSID
0 GPM
0 PSID
DP
1.6 PSID
12 PSID
8.8 PSID
0 PSID
47
Disadvantages
Added cost of strainer and
Option 4: Reverse-return
49
C/C
H/C
H/C
C/C
H/C
H/C
H/C
H/C
C/C
C/C
Option 4: Reverse-return
Advantages
No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
No significant overpressurization of control
valves close to pumps.
Usually lower pump head
due to reverse-return
piping having lower
pressure drop than mains
(due to larger pipe)
Disadvantages
Added cost of reverse
return piping
Not always practical
depending on physical
layout of system
51
C/C
2
3
C/C
C/C
4
4
C/C
C/C
6
C/C
C/C
3
52
added/subtracted without
rebalance
Reduced overpressurization of control
valves close to pumps
Lowest pump
head/energy due to
oversized piping, no
balance valves
Increased flexibility to add
loads due to oversized
piping
Disadvantages
Added cost of larger
piping
53
piping
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
Reduced overpressurization of control
valves close to pumps
where piping has been
undersized
Disadvantages
Limited effectiveness and
control valves
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
Reduced overpressurization of control
valves close to pumps
where control valves have
been undersized
Improved valve authority
which could improve
controllability where
control valves have been
undersized
Disadvantages
Limited effectiveness and
55
added/subtracted
without rebalance
No over-pressurization
of control valves close
to pumps
Easy valve selection
flow only not Cv
Perfect valve authority
will improve
controllability
Less actuator travel and
start/stop may improve
actuator longevity
Disadvantages
Added cost of strainer and
56
Maximum
pressure drop
of control valve
required for
design flow,
feet
CHW
No balancing
Manual balance
using calibrated
balancing valves
Automatic flow
limiting valves
HW
HW
Minimum flow
through most
remote coil
CHW
HW
20.5
44.4
143%
(106%)
212%
(119%)
73%
(89%)
75%
(96%)
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
20.5*
44.4*
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
Reverse-return
1.2
10.4
103%
(100%)
150%
(109%)
99%
(100%)
85%
(97%)
Oversized main
piping
7.0
20.9
122%
(103%)
173%
(112%)
94%
(99%)
82%
(97%)
Undersized branch
piping
19.5
NA
142%
(106%)
NA
73%
(100%)
NA
Undersized control
valves
8.0
NA
120%
(103%)
NA
86%
(89%)
NA
58
Pump head,
feet
CH
W
Annual Pump
Energy,
$/yr
HW
CHW
HW
$
CHW
HW
CHW
HW
No balancing
58.5
82.7
$1,910
$3,930
60.3
83.6
$1,970
$3,970
$7,960
$47,530
$6.60
$88.00
66.6
90.8
$2,170
$4,310
$11,420
$50,750
$9.50
$94.00
Reverse-return
55.3
80.0
$1,810
$3,800
$28,460
$17,290
$23.70
$32.00
45.0
59.3
$1,470
$2,820
$12,900
$7,040
$10.80
$13.00
58.5
NA
$1,910
NA
($250)
NA
($0.20)
NA
58.5
NA
$1,910
NA
($2,340)
NA
($2.00)
NA
59
Ranks
Balancing Method
Controllability
(all conditions)
Pump Energy
Costs
First Costs
No balancing
Reverse-return
7
2
3
6
5
7
2
1
4
4
7
5
4
2
1
78
60
They only limit flow for transients which has little or no value
But useful for future diagnostics on small low pressure drop coils just leave them
wide open (no throttling)
For other than very large distribution systems, option 1 (no balancing)
appears to be the best option
Break
Q= 500 X GPM X T
For a Given Load Q, When T Goes Down, GPM Goes up
Result:
Resource
January 2002 ASHRAE Symposium Paper, Degrading Chilled
Water Plant Delta-T: Causes and Mitigation
63
42oF
46oF
42
VFD
When T Degrades,
Secondary Flow
Exceeds Primary
VFD
50oF
52
64
Design
=10oF
9.5F-10.0F
Coincident Wet
Bulb Ranges
7.0F-7.5F
35F-40F
40F-45F
45F-50F
50F-55F
55F-60F
4.5F-5.0F
2.0F-2.5F
100
200
300
400
Approximate hrs/yr
500
600
700
800
Causes of Degrading T
1. Causes that can be avoided by proper
design or operation of the chilled water
system;
2. Causes that can be mitigated, but
through measures that may not result in
overall energy savings; and
3. Causes that are inevitable and simply
cannot be avoided
66
Degrading T
#1. Causes that can be eliminated by design/operation
67
Degrading T
#1. Causes that can be eliminated by design/operation
(continued)
68
Degrading T
69
Degrading T
70
14
12
10
8
6
4
Laminar
Flow
2
0
100%
80%
60%
40%
% Sensible Load
20%
0%
Delta-T (degrees-F)
16
P/S/T with
constant
T
40.00
Pump kW
35.00
30.00
25.00
P/S with
degrading
T
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
3-chiller/3-pump plant,
total 1440 gpm
% Plant Load
Conclusion: even if the laminar flow problem were real, coil
pumps are not a good solution. They add to both first costs
and energy costs.
72
Causes of Degrading T
#3. Causes That Cannot Be Eliminated
60oF
EAT
55oF
SAT
(Design CHWRT of
62, based on design
EAT of 80)
<<60oF
CHWRT
Conclusions
Design, Construction, and Operation
Errors that Cause Low DT can and
Should be Avoided
But Other Causes for Low DT can Never
be Eliminated
Conclusion: At Least Some DT
Degradation is Inevitable
Therefore: Design the CHW Plant to Allow
for Efficient Chiller Staging Despite
Degrading DT
74
Some Solutions
Use Variable Speed Drives on Chillers so that
they Operate Efficiently at Low Load
Design CHW Distribution System so Chillers can
have Increased Flow So They can be More Fully
Loaded at Low DT
Primary-only pumping
Unequal chiller and primary pump sizes, headered pumps
so large pump can serve small chiller
Low design delta-T in primary loop
Insures low T in secondary
Higher primary loop first costs & energy costs
CHECK
VALVE IN
COMMON
LEG
76
Supposed Disadvantages
Check Valve in Common Leg
So what?
Real Disadvantages
Check Valve in Common Leg
80
Issues:
Control logic to maximize efficiency not readily known
extensive analysis required
VFDs only marginally cost effective for offices even with
optimized sequences
Energy use can be higher with non-optimized sequences
Minimum flow through towers (scaling)
Minimum flow through condensers (fouling)
81
3
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
2
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
1
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
3
G#
N
IR
LE
OW
OO
CT
2
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
1
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
1
#
R
E
L
L
I
H
C
1
#
P
M
U
P
W
H
C
1
#
R
E
L
L
I
H
C
1
#
P
M
U
P
W
H
C
2
#
R
E
L
L
I
H
C
2
#
P
M
U
P
W
H
C
2
#
R
E
L
L
I
H
C
2
#
P
M
U
P
W
H
C
3
#
R
E
L
L
I
H
C
3
#
P
M
U
P
W
H
C
3
#
R
E
L
L
I
H
C
3
#
P
M
U
P
W
H
C
L
A
N
O
I
T
P
O
3
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
2
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
3
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
1
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
2
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
3
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
1
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
1
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
1.
2.
3.
83
2
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
1
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
Twb 34F
44F
1
#
R
E
L
L
I
H
C
2
#
R
E
L
L
I
H
C
47F
44F
NonIntegrated
Economizer
Heat
Exchanger
in parallel
with chillers
65F
47F
2
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
1
G#
N
IR
LE
OW
OO
CT
Twb 52F
59F
4000 hrs/yr
47F
1
#
R
E
L
L
I
H
C
41%
0%
CHILLER #2
EITHER PUMP
OR VALVE
(NOT BOTH)
MODULATING
VALVE
9%
59F
Heat Exchanger in
series with chillers
on CHW side
Integrated
Economizer
62F
Primary/Secondary
65F
50%
load
47F
2
G#
NR
I
LE
OW
OO
CT
1
G#
N
IR
LE
OW
OO
CT
Twb 52F
59F
47F
1
#
R
E
L
L
I
H
C
38%
2
#
R
E
L
L
I
H
C
38%
75%
load
BYPASS
WSE-ONLY
MODULATING
VALVE
15%
59F
Integrated
Economizer
62F
65F
Primary Only
90%
load
47F
No sudden switchovers
Meets Title 24 and ASHRAE 90.1
NONE!
87
87
88
~30%
~24%
~48%
89
Cooling Tower
Whats Missing from this Picture?
Retrofit WSE HX
91
Lunch
Design Procedure
Design Procedure
Select Chilled Water Distribution System
Select Temperatures, Flow Rate and
Primary Pipe Sizes
Select Cooling Tower Design Criteria
Select Chillers
Finalize Piping System Design, Select
Pumps
Develop Optimum Control System and
Control Sequences
94
Recommended
Chilled Water Distribution Arrangement
Independent Variables
Number of
Coils/Loads Served
Recommended System
Number of
Chillers
Size of Coils/Loads
Served
Any
Any
None
One
2-way
and 3way
More than
one
3-way
More than
one
2-way
Any
Large Campus
2-way
PrimaryDistributed Secondary
(slide 32, 97)
Any
None
PrimaryCoil Secondary
(slide 32, 99)
One
More than one
Control
Valves
Distribution Type
95
Primary/Secondary
Secondary
Pump w/ VFD
at Chiller
Plant
2-Way Control
Valves at
AHUs
96
Primary/Distributed Secondary
Distributed
Secondary
Pump w/ VFD Typical at each
Building
No Secondary
Pumps at
Plant
Central Plant
97
Primary/Coil Secondary
Distributed
Secondary
Pump w/ VFD Typical at
each AHU
No Secondary
Pumps at Plant
No Control
Valves at
AHUs
Large
AHU-1
Large
AHU-2
99
Hybrid systems
100
Self-balancing
No minimum DP setpoint
Pump efficiency constant
Better Control
102
Primary-only System
Headered Pumps & Auto Isolation Valves
Preferred to Dedicated Pumps:
Allows slow staging
Allows 1 pump/2 chiller operation
Allows 2 pump/1 chiller operation if there is
low T
BYPASS
VALVE
Flow Meter
or DP Sensor Across Chiller
103
Reduced connected HP
Cube Law savings due to VFD and variable flow
through both primary and secondary circuit
104
Pump Energy
Primary vs. Primary/Secondary (3-chiller plant)
40.00
35.00
30.00
Pump kW
25.00
Primarysecondary
20.00
15.00
Primary-only
10.00
5.00
0.00
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% GPM
105
106
0 GPM
1000 GPM
107
500 GPM
500 GPM
108
Advantages
Peak shaving
Simplifies chiller staging
Provides back-up for chiller failure
Secondary water source for fire
department
Secondary water source for cooling
towers
Disadvantages
Installed cost
Space
110
Pipe Sizing
Pipe Sizing
Need to balance
112
113
TE LCC Spreadsheet
Download from:
http://www.taylor-engineering.com/publications/design_guides.shtml
114
CRITICAL RUN
Non-noise sensitive
2000
4400
8760
5.0
3.9
3.0
12
9.0
7.0
19
14
11
34
26
20
57
43
34
73
55
44
100
77
60
180
140
110
320
240
190
430
330
260
700
530
420
1,200
900
720
1,900
1,500
1,200
2,900
2,200
1,700
4,000
3,000
2,400
4,900
3,800
3,000
7,000
5,300
4,200
7,700
5,800
4,600
12,000
8,900
7,100
14,000
11,000
8,500
2000
1.8
4.6
8.9
15
24
51
81
140
280
430
700
1,200
1,900
2,900
4,000
4,900
7,000
7,700
12,000
14,000
Noise sensitive
4400
1.8
4.6
8.9
15
24
51
77
140
240
330
530
900
1,500
2,200
3,000
3,800
5,300
5,800
8,900
11,000
Pipe Diameter
1/2
3/4
1
1 1/4
1 1/2
2
2 1/2
3
4
5
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
24
26
CRITICAL RUN
Non-noise sensitive
2000
4400
8760
7.8
5.9
4.6
18
14
11
29
22
17
51
39
30
88
67
52
120
84
67
160
120
91
270
210
160
480
360
290
670
510
390
1,100
800
630
1,800
1,400
1,100
2,900
2,200
1,800
4,400
3,300
2,600
6,000
4,600
3,600
7,400
5,700
4,500
10,000
8,000
6,300
11,000
8,800
7,000
17,000
13,000
11,000
21,000
16,000
13,000
2000
1.8
4.6
8.9
15
24
51
81
140
280
490
770
1,500
2,700
4,200
5,400
7,200
9,200
11,000
17,000
20,000
Noise sensitive
4400
8760
1.8
1.8
4.6
4.6
8.9
8.9
15
15
24
24
51
51
81
81
140
140
280
280
490
390
770
630
1,400
1,100
2,200
1,800
3,300
2,600
4,600
3,600
5,700
4,500
8,000
6,300
8,800
7,000
13,000
11,000
16,000
13,000
Download from:
http://www.taylor-engineering.com/publications/design_guides.shtml
115
Trimming Impellers
GPM
HEAD
Impleller Eff
1,710
78.0
10.125
86.16%
1,900
96.3
10.875
88%
116
Optimum T
Q = 500 GPM T
Load from Load
Calcs (Btu/hr)
Flow rate
(GPM)
Conversion
constant
=8.33 lb/gal *
60 minutes/hr
Temperature
Rise or Fall (F)
118
CHW T Tradeoffs
Typical Range 8F
First Cost
Impact
Energy Cost
impact
to
25F
smaller coil
smaller pipe
smaller pump
smaller pump motor
119
10
13
16
19
22
25
23.5
0.48
6
7.4
13.9
0.50
6
8.3
9.1
0.52
6
9.4
8.3
0.60
8
7.7
6.7
0.63
8
8.6
4.7
0.78
8
11.6
Cooling coil pressure air- and waterside drops were determined from a manufacturers ARI-certified selection
program assuming 500 fpm coil face velocity, smooth tubes, maximum 12 fpi fin spacing, 43F chilled water supply
temperature, 78F/63F entering air and 53F leaving air temperature.
120
kWh/ton/year
800
600
400
200
0
11
13
15
18
20
CHW Delta-T
CHWST = 44F
121
1400
CHP Energy kWh/year
Chiller Energy kWh/year
1200
kWh/ton/year
1000
800
600
400
200
0
41/16
42/14
43/12
44/10
CHWST/Delta-T
122
Rows
10
11
10
4
6
8
Air
Pressure
Drop
(inH2O)
0.70
0.65
0.80
PIPING
Fluid
T
(F)
Fluid
Flow
(gpm)
10.1
18.2
24.9
118.7
66.0
47.0
Fluid
Pressure
Drop (ft
H2O)
9.1
7.6
5.7
Coil
Cost
Pipe
Size
Coil
Connection
Total
Cost
$3,598
$4,845
$5,956
3
2.5
2
$4,551
$3,581
$2,101
$8,149
$8,426
$8,057
Includes
20 feet
of pipe
123
Water-side economizers
CHW thermal energy storage
124
Recommended Procedure:
Determine CHW Flow Rate at 25F
Pick primary pipe sizes (pumps, headers, main risers) in critical
circuit (that which determines pump head)
Find maximum flow for each pipe size and recalculate T for these
flow rates
We use 42F minimum. May need to adjust pipe size and T if 42F not cold
enough
Short-cut Procedure:
Use 42F CHWST
Use 8 row 10 fpi coils
Example Building
16TH FLOOR
AUX
FANCOILS &
CRUs
6TH
FLOOR
127
Example Building
From
simplified
Table VFVS
Load
S ection
M ain system piping
M ain riser to 6th floor
Piping to main AHU coils
Piping to main aux. coils
GPM at
tons 25 F T
Application
1100
1056 Non-noise sensitive, variable
flow, ~4400 hrs
820
787 Noise sensitive, variable flow,
2000 hrs
140
134 Non-noise sensitive, variable
flow, 2000 hrs
260
250 Noise sensitive, variable flow,
8760 hrs
Pipe size
8
Maximum Minimum
Resulting
GPM
T
1400
18.9
1500
13.1
210
16.0
4"
280
22.3
Minimum
average T
this circuit
128
129
T
Low
Typical Range
8F
smaller condenser
Energy Cost
impact
lower chiller
energy
High
to
20F
smaller pipe
smaller pump
smaller pump motor
smaller cooling tower
smaller cooling tower motor
lower pump energy
lower cooling tower energy
130
600
Tower Fan
CW pump
500
kWh/ton/year
Chiller
400
300
200
100
0
73/16
73.5/14
74.5/12
75.5/10
CWST/Delta-T
131
132
Recommended Procedure:
Determine CW Flow Rate at 15F
Pick primary pipe sizes (pumps, headers,
main risers) in critical circuit
133
Example Building
% Design Capacity
210%
200%
190%
180%
170%
160%
150%
140%
130%
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
19
17
15
1
13
2
11
4
5
Range (F)
9
7
Approach (F)
200%-210%
190%-200%
180%-190%
170%-180%
160%-170%
150%-160%
140%-150%
130%-140%
120%-130%
110%-120%
100%-110%
90%-100%
80%-90%
70%-80%
60%-70%
50%-60%
40%-50%
30%-40%
20%-30%
10%-20%
0%-10%
7
9
10
5
11
135
85F
WETBULB TEMPERATURE
75F
136
137
Single Speed
Fan
% Power
Free Cooling
~ 15% of Capacity
Two-Speed or
Variable-Speed
Fan
% Capacity
138
70%
% Power
60%
50%
40%
Two 2-Speed Fans
30%
Two Variable Speed
Free Cooling Below 15%
Capacity
20%
10%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100
%
% Capacity
139
1000 ton
Oakland
Office
90 GPM/HP
70 GPM/HP
50 GPM/HP
141
Tower Approach
Oakland Office
142
Oakland
Chicago
Albuquerque
25
Atlanta
Las Vegas
20
Miami
15
10
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
TA = 27 TCW 0.001CDD50
143
Break
CHILLER SELECTION
Part-Load Ratio
146
Number of chillers
Chiller size
Chiller efficiency
Chiller unloading
mechanism
As much as possible
Do Specify:
700
600
500
Percent Load
400
300
200
100
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
150
% Tolerance
30%
10F Delta-T
15F Delta-T
25%
20F Delta-T
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
% of Full Load
152
153
White: Fixed
fields
Blue: Calculated
fields
154
155
156
157
Example Projects
Large Central Plant
Central plant serving industrial/office/research
park,
San Jose, CA. 17,000 tons total capacity
158
17000
Ton
Chiller
Plant
Chiller Options
LCC Assumptions:
Discount rate
9%
Electricity Escalation 0%
Analysis years
15
Selected
Chillers
A #1 #1
Carrier
A #2 #2
Carrier
B #1 #1
Trane
York
C #1 #1
York
C #2 #2
York
C #3 #3
York
C #4 #4
Description
Two 1327 tons, 0.57 kW/t
Two 1421 tons, 0.55 kW/t
Two 1330 tons, 0.56 kW/t
Two 1290 tons, 0.56 kW/t
Two 1284 tons, 0.57 kW/t
Two 1250 tons, 0.53 kW/t
Two 1273 tons, 0.53 kW/t
1st Cost
Rank
1
2
3
5
4
6
7
16TH FLOOR
AUX
FANCOILS
& CRUs
6TH FLOOR
San Francisco
High-rise
Office
1100 tons
High-Rise
Office Tower
Description
Trane
A #1#1
Chiller
Options
Trane
A #2#2
Carrier
B #1#1
Carrier
B #2#2
Selected
Chillers
Carrier #3
B #3
McQuay #1
C #1
McQuay #2
C #2
McQuay #3
C #3
McQuay
C #4 #4
York
#1
D #1
LCC Assumptions:
Discount rate
Electricity Escalation
Analysis years
8%
0%
15
York
#2
D #2
D #3
York
#3
Life Cycle
Energy
Cost
Cost Savings
vs. vs LCC
Rank
Base
Rank
1st
Cost
Rank
6
$142,016
10
$22,092
12
$173,962
12
$21,246
$7,702
$78,159
11
$141,179
$112,419
10
$147,440
11
11
$104,078
10
$0
12
$92,421
Disadvantages
Advantages
164
OPTIMIZING CONTROLS
165
Optimum Sequences
All plants are different
CT fan speed
Chiller staging
CW pump speed and staging
Equipment Models
Chillers
Towers
Pumps
168
Office building
Peak Load = 900 ton
Two chillers each 500 ton
Two CW pumps & towers
Two CHW pumps
All variable speed
Climate:
3C: Oakland
4B: Albuquerque
5C: Chicago
Chillers:
Tower Approach
-A: 3 ~ 5F
-B: 5 ~ 7F
-C: 7 ~ 10F
-D: 9 ~ 12F
Tower Range:
-1: 9F
-2: 12F
-3: 15F
Tower Efficiency
H: ~90 gpm/hp
M: ~70 gpm/hp
L: ~50 gpm/hp
169
Theoretical Optimum
Plant Performance
(TOPP) Model
Run Time: ~5
hours/run * 216 runs =
1080 hours, not
including analysis!
Determining Sequences
Plot TOPP results vs. various
independent variables to see if there
are trends
Once independent variables are
selected, determine correlations
Test the sequence using the models
to see how close they are to the
TOPP
171
Total
1,210,000
1,210,000 0.39%
1,230,000 1.85%
1,330,000 10.31%
1,590,000 31.73%
172
174
Optimum Number of
Pumps
Percent of Design
Flow
Percent of Pump
Speed
176
80%
DP setpoint =Head/2
DP setpoint =Head/3
Percent Pump kW
70%
DP setpoint = 0 (reset)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percent GPM
70%
80%
90%
100%
177
Recommendations
Reset from control valve position using Trim & Respond logic
For variable flow systems with VSDs
Reset of CHWST and VSD differential pressure setpoint must be
sequenced not independent like VAV systems since control valves
are pressure-dependent
Sequence reset of CHWST and DP next slide_
178
Tmin+
15F
DP
setpoint
CHW
setpoint
DP
setpoint
CHW
setpoint
Tmin
5 psi
0
50%
CHW Plant Reset
100%
Plant with 150 ft. CHW pump head, variable speed chillers
180
Cooling Towers
182
A and B coefficients
Carrier: 18F
Trane: 13F
McQuay standard: 13F
York standard: 11F
York and McQuay magnetic bearing: 3F
CW pump Control
Constant speed CW pumps
186
187
CWFR = C*PLR + D
CWFSP = CWFR*CWDF
Control speed to maintain CW flow at setpoint
Staging
Disadvantages
188
CWLoopFlowRatio =
C*PlantLoadRatio + D
Coefficient C
Coefficient D
Atlanta
Las
Vegas
Oakland
Albuquerque
Chicago
190
Theoretical
Optimum Plant
Performance
Constant Flow
Theoretical
Optimum Plant
Performance
Variable Flow
Simulated
Constant Flow
with Real
Sequence
Simulated
Variable Flow
with Real
Sequence
191
Not cost
effective with
real controls
Barely cost
effective with
ideal controls
Theoretical
Optimum Plant
Performance
Constant Flow
Theoretical
Optimum Plant
Performance
Variable Flow
Simulated
Constant Flow
with Real
Sequence
Simulated
Variable Flow
with Real
Sequence
192
1200000
1000000
800000
TOPP
STD
600000
OAK
GEN-1
400000
200000
0
Chiller
Tower
CHWP
CWP
PlantTotal
193
Oakland
194
Miami
CW gpm vs % Load
100%
90%
80%
y = 0.9069x + 0.0388
CW gpm
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% Total Plant Design Capacity
Oakland :
Miami:
195
Recommendations
For offices etc., use constant speed
pumps
For data centers and other 24/7
plants
Use VFDs
Determine C and D coefficients through
modeling
Other logic may increase energy usage
196
Chiller Staging
199
100%
90%
Fixed Speed
80%
Variable Speed
70%
%kW
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
5 0%
4 0%
Variable Speed - o ne ch iller
Fixed Speed - one ch iller
3 0%
2 0%
Run ning two VFD
chillers is more efficient
until 35% load
1 0%
0%
0%
10 %
20 %
30%
% Plant Load
40%
5 0%
201
Cautionary Note
Staging logic must limit possibility for
surge operation for centrifugal chillers
Some variable speed chillers dont
dynamically measure surge conditions
You will lose some of the savings with primaryonly variable flow systems because minimum
speed may have to be increased to avoid surge
You may have premature tripping due to onset of
surge otherwise
This is only an issue with variable evaporator
flow systems (like primary-only variable flow)
202
Refrigerant
Refrigerant
Head Lift
90%
Two Chillers
One Chiller
80%
Surge Region
70%
Two Chillers
One Chiller
60%
Load
Load
203
204
205
Chillers
on
All off
Nominal
Capacity
0
Lead
chiller
50%
for 15 minutes
load greater than
SPLR
Both
chillers
100%
Stage down to
lower stage if:
No Chiller Plant
Requests for 5
minutes or
OAT<(LOT-5F)
or schedule is
inactive
for 15 minutes
load less than
SPLR
206
Determining E and F
TE Correlations
0.000233*APPROACH - 0.000402*RANGE
+ 0.0399*KW/TON
F = -1.06 + 0.0145*WB + 2.16*IPLV +
0.0068*APPROACH + 0.0117*RANGE 1.33*KW/TON
Example
Oakland office building
All variable speed plant
Coefficients best fit from TOPP
model
A = 47, B =5.2
C = 1.3, D = 0.13
E = 0.009, F = 0.21
208
Hours/year
kW/ton
209
210
Waterside Economizers
211
Summary
In this course, you have learned techniques to
design and control chiller plants for nearminimum life cycle costs, including:
213
Questions
214